Liberals position themselves as defence ‘myth busters’ ahead of election

Although an official election platform is still nowhere to be seen, the Liberal party is attempting to position itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives on the defence portfolio by “myth busting” the Conservative government’s record on defence spending and security.

In a press conference Thursday morning in Ottawa, Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray told reporters there are five major myths the government has perpetuated about its handling of the military that she intended to debunk. But when asked what the party would do differently about issues she raised such as defence procurement, Arctic sovereignty and stabilizing funding for the Department of National Defence, Murray offered up few counterpoints.

“Our platform will come out closer to the election campaign. This is really not about making announcements. It’s about pointing out the disingenuous approach of this government,” said Murray. “I’m not going to talk about what our platform with respect to funding might be.”

The five myths raised by Murray:

1. The government’s first priority is the men and women in uniform;

2. The government is committed to the best equipment for our men and women in uniform;

3. The government is providing stable, increasing funding for 20 years;

4. Northern sovereignty is a Conservative government priority; and

5. Only the Conservative government can be trusted on defence.

To each myth, a press release outlined situations where the government has failed to meet deadlines or promises: for example, the fifth bullet point includes mention to the incident when “Minister Kenney falsely claimed that only Canada and the U.S. have precision missile capacity, when in fact many coalition allies have this capacity.”

It also pointed to multiple cases where major procurement deals have not come through, such as the Goose Bay drone and rapid response squadron which was promised in 2005 but never delivered.

“This presentation is about trust and the fact that this government has lost the trust of Canadians in terms of this very key identity piece for them, which is the Canadian Armed Forces,” Murray said.

“I think that is critical to do because the government has spent a lot of taxpayer dollars to create photo opportunities for the Prime Minister and the ministers in front of large military pieces of equipment, with the troops — even, at times, putting them in peril in order to brand themselves as a big supporter of the Canadian Armed Forces and national defence. The reality is the opposite.”

Murray said she acknowledged that past Liberal governments have not been “perfect” on the portfolio either but said it is the Conservatives who have branded themselves as defenders of the military and failed to do, so they must be held to account.

She also admitted the new procurement review panel announced by the government last week could help address some of the issues in defence procurement but said it’s too early to say for sure and that it would require more work to address the systemic issues that slow down procurement.

The government reacted to Murray’s press conference with its own list of what it called “Just the Facts,” highlighting cases where it says Liberal governments and MPs have failed to support to military.

“Joyce Murray admitted today ‘that Liberals may not have been perfect in previous governments.’ In fact, this is a massive understatement about their legacy — the ‘decade of darkness’ they inflicted upon on our armed forces,” said Lauren Armstrong, press secretary for Defence Minister Jason Kenney.

Armstrong outlined four “facts” to support the government’s position as a supporter of the Canadian Armed Forces, saying that:

7 comments on “Liberals position themselves as defence ‘myth busters’ ahead of election”

Hate to make this point as a woman, but to reach the audience they are attempting to reach on this issue, they should have used Garneau as the spokesperson. Murray, while this is her file, is hard to listen to at the best of times, though a kind and hard-working MP.

So, enlighten us with what should have been outlined—If we are talking about painful shame then I stick to the asinine comment made by Harper to have his no-necks ( I use that term to speak to people who by now have had enough facts vetting out how much Harper is a paper cowboy who plays soldier thru our ‘real’ soldiers he has so maligned across Canada and continues to —–

One defining point, the choices we make to humiliate or shame a group that fought they believed for their countrymen can’t be a simple mistake —it was always done with purpose and meanness. The investigating of hapless soldiers wanting answers, the suing of all our Vets to chew off for corporations some of their well-earned benefits makes only your party an your leader Harper look small and vile….There really is no other way to look at such cruel determined behaviors.
—-Get out of our governments leader party and all—Personally I don’t want to hear the name of the PC for at least 5 years—By the by, better not try any ‘dirty tricks’ to bring any oligarchy-controlling trade agreements in to our country. If you find Canada the way it is so liberal—or centrist—then leave and riddens to you and your mean-spirited group.

Wake up, Marg. I am not a Harperite. You have corresponded with me before.

I am referring to how the Liberal message could be better delivered to persuade male centre-right and right wing voters – these are the people who are least disposed to hearing Joyce Murray’s message. Others already tend to agree with her, regardless of how stilted her delivery may be.

Sorry, its just that it gets a bit bloody much how all focus so much criticism on either a Liberal rep or a NDP one. Its really mind boggling, that ‘H’ can be so Cheney and continue to get away with it—I guess I’m a wee bit impatient, even Notley who should have the ‘goods’ by now to help unload the Alberta mess we all know is there after 40 plus years. But still all treat ‘H’ as some kind of powerful toxin they dare not disturb for fear his square head will blow. One bright light was the social media attack on Tim’s –against Enbridge—- tc M

Joyce Murray “hard to listen to”. To each her own I guess. I find her eloquent. She is so up on this file and I think when a non-military person and a woman at that speaks about concerns in regards to the military, it just adds weight to the arguments.

Yes. It’s the tone, cadence, and fluster-proneness that for me, don’t make her the most credible of speakers, despite her earnestness and knowledge on the file.

I was opining about how the Liberals could get maximum bang for their buck in their communications to the not fully converted. To those people, a real member of the military, and a white man of a certain age would yield the greatest openness to the message. And that’s the votes they need, so it makes sense.

Similarly, Hedy Fry, a doctor, would have more credibility speaking on safe injection sites, say, than would Scott Brison.